AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
27.05.2025: This appeal is against an impugned order dated 11.01.2024. Vide the impugned order, the recall application viz. C.A./375/2023 in CP/3696(MB)/2019 for recall of the order dated 09.05.2023 passed in MA-3728/2019 in CP/3696(MB)/2019 was dismissed. The original order passed on 09.05.2023, directed as follows:
“a. The R2 and R3 are restrained from interfering with the functioning of R1 company and / or otherwise representing or holding themselves as directors of R1 company or representing it in whatsoever manner;
b. They are further directed to render full accounts of the company from 05.01.2017 till date and keep those records including statutory records of the company at the registered office;
c. They are further directed not to interfere or obstruct in the maintenance of the registered office of the company and access of such office including other premises of the company to the Petitioners;
d. They are also restrained from operating the bank account of the company or enter into any agreement for or on behalf of the company; and
e. They shall provide the details of contracts / agreements rendered by them for or on behalf of the company till the date of communication of this order within 15 days to this Tribunal.”
The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits the company petition viz. CP/3696(MB)/2019 is still pending before the Ld. NCLT and pleadings in the said company petition are complete and he would take-up all issues before the Ld. NCLT and he would be satisfied in case the Respondents are directed to make all compliances as the company has received a notice/order dated 22.02.2024 from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs alleging certain violations under Section 137, 92(4) and 96 etc., of the Companies Act.
It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, let the person in charge of the company look into the violations and make necessary compliances.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent though objected to the maintainability of the appeal alleging the original order passed on 09.05.2023 was never challenged and when the time for filing an appeal against it had lapsed, the appellant with a view to increase limitation had filed an application of recall which was also dismissed by the impugned order.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent says since the company is now run being run by a receiver appointed by the Hon’ble High Court, hence, it would be appropriate if the receiver or whom so ever is in charge of the company make all statutory compliances. The violation(s) as alleged in the notice/order dated 22.02.2024 be looked into and all the parties to cooperate to do away with such violations.
Since the appellant is not pursuing the appeal on merits, it would be appropriate to dispose of the appeal with a request to the Ld. NCLT to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. This order is passed without prejudicing the rights and contentions as raised by the parties before us or before the Ld. NCLT in the CP/3696(MB)/2019.
In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, are closed.